CLARENCE E. TURNER
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, A MUNICIPAL FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND B. & B. STORES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Turner, a liquor package store licensee, sought an injunction to prevent the City of Miami from issuing a competing liquor license to B & B Stores, Inc., claiming the proposed location violated the city's 2500-foot separation ordinance. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a licensee has no standing to sue in equity to restrain issuance of licenses to competitors based on the nature of liquor licenses as mere personal privileges rather than property rights.
No. A liquor package store license is merely a personal and temporary permit or privilege granted by legislative grace, not a property right or exclusive territorial grant. Therefore, a licensee lacks standing to sue in equity to prevent issuance of competing licenses, and any commercial advantage gained by eliminating competition is too elusive and uncertain to sustain such an action.
“a license to operate a package store for the sale of whiskey is at most a mere personal and temporary permit or privilege to be enjoyed so long as its conditions and restrictions are fully complied with — it authorizes to be done that which could not be done without it”
Establishes that liquor licenses are privileges, not property rights, and lack independent legal significance beyond authorization to conduct business.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClarence E. Turner operated a liquor package store at 3596 N.W. 27th Avenue in Miami, Florida. The City of Miami proposed to issue a similar license t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
The record in this case discloses that the appellant, Clarence E. Turner, plaintiff below, operated a liquor package store at 3596 N.W. 27th Avenue, Miami, Florida. He filed in the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, a bill in equity and therein prayed for a restraining order against the City of Miami from the issuance of a similar license to operate a liquor package store to B & B Stores, Inc., on the ground the proposed location was less than 2500 feet from the Turner’s package store place of business and fell within the inhibitions of Ordinance No. 2896 of the City of Miami. On final hearing the injunction was denied and the bill dismissed. An application to amend the bill was by an appropriate order denied and the plaintiff below appealed.
It is within the power of the officials of the City of Miami to determine whether or not the proposed location of the package store of B & B Stores, Inc., is within 2500 feet of an existing licensee, to-wit, the package store of Clarence E. Turner, located at 3596 N.W. 27th Avenue in the City of Miami. If the proposed location is more than 2500 feet then a *318license may be issued under Ordinance No. 2896. One of the essential questions presented here is the authority or right of Clarence E. Turner to maintain this suit in equity against the City of Miami as its objective unquestionably is to prevent or stifle competition within the trade area. It is generally held that a license to operate a package store for the sale of whiskey is at most a mere personal and temporary permit or privilege to be enjoyed so long as its conditions and restrictions are fully complied with — it authorizes to be done that which could not be done without it. Its issuance is a matter not of right but of legislative grace and may be extended, limited or denied. City of Miami Beach v. Patrician Hotel Co., 145 Fla. 716, 200 So. 213; Am. Jur. 296, par. 73. Authorities have not been cited to show that the plaintiff below, as a holder of a license to operate a package store issued by the City of Miami, has the right to maintain a suit in equity to restrain the city from issuing a similar license to a potential competitor.
The case of Baker v. State ex rel. Hi-Hat Liquors, Inc.,. 159 Fla. 286, 31 So. (2nd) 275, was a mandamus proceeding to require the State Beverage Department to revoke a retail liquor package store license previously issued to Cliff Baker on the ground that his place of business was within three-hundred feet of a school site, in violation of the statute. Baker and Hi-Hat hold identical licenses and Hi-Hat’s place of business was beyond the prescribed 300 feet zone, while Baker’s was within the prescribed 300 feet zone. These parties are competitors in the sale of intoxicating liquors and. the purpose of the suit was to eliminate Baker as a competitor.
We held that Hi-Hat did not have such an interest in the controversy as would permit it to maintain a mandamus suit to eliminate a potential competitor. We in part said (text 31 So. (2nd) page 276):
“Neither licensee had anything more than a permit to engage in the liquor business. Each had the same right and privileges. The law did not restrict competition beween them, nor were they allotted any exclusive territorial areas. The profits or commercial advantages which Hi-Hat might gain in *319the elimination of Baker’s competition are too elusive and uncertain to sustain the action.”
The order dismissing the bill of complaint entered in the lower court is affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keating v. State of Fla. ex rel. Bernard Ausebel, 173 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1965)…time. Petitioner contends the District Court of Appeal in agreeing that respondent had the requisite standing to maintain his action conflicted with: Baker v. State ex rel. Hi-Hat Liquors, Inc., 159 Fla. 286, 31 So. 2d 275; Turner v. City of Miami, 160 Fla. 317, 34 So. 2d 551 and Donovan v. Schott, Fla., 58 So. 2d 847. It is necessary to refer only to the Hi-Hat Liquor, Inc., case, since a comparison ■of it with the instant case discloses conflict involving our certiorari jurisdiction. The gist of the Hi…
-
Keating v. State, 167 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)…ons: “ * * * The respondent and amici curiae contend that the relator Bernard Ausebel does not have such interest and urge in support of this position. Baker vs. State ex rel. High Hat Liquors, 159 Fla. 286, 31 So. 2d 275; Turner vs. City of Miami, 160 Fla. 317, 34 So. 2d 551; and Donovan vs. Schott [Fla.], 58 So. 2d 847. Baker was a mandamus proceeding but Turner and Donovan were suits in equity. In Baker the facts are somewhat similar to that at bar but with one significant difference. In Baker it was [*…
-
Fla. State Racing Comm'n v. Broward Cnty. Kennel Club, Inc., 77 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 1955)…the licensee was located within a restricted area. The court held that the relator’s interest was too “elusive and uncertain” to entitle it to a writ of mandamus. A similar situation was under consideration by the court in Turner v. City of Miami, 160 Fla. 317, 34 So. 2d 551. In that case a liquor dealer was attempting to enjoin the City of Miami from issuing a license to a competitor on the ground that the business of the licensee would be located in a prohibited area. It was decided that the plaintiff h…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Miami Beach v. State ex rel Patrician Hotel Co. & William C. Wisdom, 145 Fla. 716 (Fla. 1941)
- Cliff Baker v. State, 159 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1947)